With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on last Thursday's terrorist attacks in London.

The number of confirmed dead currently stands at 52; the number still in hospital is 56, some of whom are severely injured. The whole House, I know, will want to state our feelings strongly. We express our revulsion at this murderous carnage of the innocent. We send our deep and abiding sympathy and prayers to the victims and their families. We are united in our determination that our country will not be defeated by such terror, but will defeat it and emerge from this horror with our values, our way of life, our tolerance and respect for others, undiminished. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]

I should also like us to record our heartfelt thanks to, and admiration for, our emergency services. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Police; those working on our underground, buses and trains; paramedics; doctors and nurses; ambulance staff; firefighters; and the disaster recovery teams: all of them can be truly proud of the part that they played in coming to the aid of London last Thursday, and the part that they continue to play. They are magnificent. As for Londoners themselves, their stoicism, resilience and sheer undaunted spirit were an inspiration and an example. At the moment of terror striking, when the eyes of the world were upon them, they responded, and continue to respond, with a defiance and a strength that are universally admired.

I will now try to give the House as much information as I can; obviously, some of it is already well known. There were four explosions. Three took place on underground trains: one between Aldgate East and Liverpool Street; one between Russell Square and Kings Cross; one in a train at Edgware Road station. All of these took place within 50 seconds of each other, at 8.50 am. The other explosion was on the No. 30 bus at Upper Woburn place, at 9.47 a.m.

The timing of the tube explosions was designed to be at the peak of the rush hour, and thus to cause maximum death and injury. It seems probable that the attack was carried out by Islamist extremist terrorists of the kind who, over recent years, have been responsible for so many innocent deaths in Madrid, Bali, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kenya, Tanzania, Pakistan, Yemen, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco and of course New York on 11 September, but in many other countries, too.

I cannot give details, for obvious reasons, of the police investigation now under way. I can say that it is among the most vigorous and intensive this country has ever seen. We will pursue those responsible—not just the perpetrators but the planners of this outrage—wherever they are, and we will not rest until they are identified and, as far as is humanly possible, brought to justice.

I should also like to say this about our police and intelligence services. I know of no intelligence specific enough to have allowed them to prevent last Thursday's attacks. By their very nature, people callous enough to kill completely innocent civilians in this way are hard to stop. But our services and police do an heroic job for our country day in day out, and I can say that over the past years, as this particular type of new and awful terrorist threat has grown, they have done their utmost to keep this country and its people safe. As I saw again from the meeting of COBR this morning, their determination to get those responsible is total.

Besides the obvious imperative of tracking down those who carried out these acts of terrorism, our principal concern is the bereaved; the families of the victims. It is the most extraordinarily distressing time for them and all of us feel profoundly for them.

Let me explain what we are trying to do. The majority, though I stress not all, of the victims' families now have a very clear idea that they have lost their loved ones. For many, patterns of life and behaviour are well enough established that the numbers of potential victims can now be brought within reasonable range of the actual victims. Some 74 families now have police family liaison officers with them.

In addition, we have established, with Westminster city council, the police and others, the family assistance centre. This is presently at the Queen Mother sports centre. Tomorrow it will move to a more suitable site at the Royal Horticultural halls in Westminster. I would like to thank the many organisations involved, including the Salvation Army, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the Red Cross, Westminster city council and all those counsellors who are helping to staff the centre. In this way we are doing our level best to look after the families. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has taken charge of this aspect as she has done before.

More difficult is then the process of formal identification. The police are proceeding here with some caution. In previous terrorist attacks of a similar kind in other countries, mistakes have been made, which are incredibly distressing. The effect of a bomb is to make identification sometimes very, very hard and harrowing. There is now a process in place, involving a group chaired by the coroner, which will, in each case, make a definitive pronouncement once the right procedures are gone through. I wish it could be quicker but I think the only wise course is to follow precisely the advice of coroner and police and that is what we will do.

At some time, and in consultation with the families, we will be ready to join in arrangements for a memorial service for the victims. Her Majesty the Queen has kindly said she will attend. Two minutes' silence will be held at noon on Thursday. This will be an opportunity for the nation to unite in remembrance.

There is then the issue of further anti-terrorist legislation. During the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism Act earlier this year we pledged to introduce a further counter-terrorism Bill later in this session. That remains our intention. It will give us an opportunity, in close consultation with the police and the agencies, to see whether there are additional powers that they might need to prevent further attacks.

As to timing, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pledged to publish the Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in the autumn with introduction in spring 2006, so that Parliament had time to digest the report on the operation of control orders, produced by the independent reviewer, Lord Carlile. I do not currently see any reason to depart from that timetable.However, that is subject to an important caveat. If, as the fuller picture about these incidents emerges and the investigation proceeds, it becomes clear that there are powers that the police and intelligence agencies need immediately to combat terrorism, it is plainly sensible to reserve the right to return to Parliament with an accelerated timetable.

Finally, I would like to record our deep appreciation of the huge outpouring of international support for London and for Britain over these past days. The G8 leaders demonstrated complete solidarity and also commented, with an awe that gave me a lot of pride in Britain, on the courage of our capital city and its people. The UN Security Council passed a unanimous resolution of condemnation of the terrorists and support for Britain. The International Olympic Committee sent a resolution of support. Messages have been received worldwide. There have been immediate offers of help from all the world's main intelligence agencies and an emergency meeting of the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council will take place later this week.

Mr. Speaker, 7 July will always be remembered as a day of terrible sadness for our country and for London. Yet it is true that, just four days later, London's buses, trains and as much of its underground as possible are back on normal schedules; its businesses, shops and schools are open; its millions of people are coming to work with a steely determination that is genuinely remarkable.

Yesterday we celebrated the heroism of world war two, including the civilian heroes of London's blitz. Today, what a different city London is—a city of many cultures, faiths and races, hardly recognisable from the London of 1945. It is so different and yet, in the face of this attack, there is something wonderfully familiar in the confident spirit that moves throughout the city, enabling it to take the blow but still not flinch from reasserting its will to triumph over adversity. Britain may be different today, but the coming together and the character are still the same.

I say to our Muslim community that people know full well that the overwhelming majority of Muslims stand four square with every other community in Britain. We were proud of your contribution to Britain before last Thursday, and we remain proud of it today. Fanaticism is not a state of religion, but a state of mind. We will work with you to make the moderate and true voice of Islam heard as it should be.

Together, we will ensure that, though terrorists can kill, they will never destroy the way of life that we share and value, which we will defend with such strength of belief and conviction that it will be to us and not to the terrorists that victory will belong.

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement. I want to begin by paying tribute to him for the calm, resolute and statesmanlike way in which the Government responded to last Thursday's attack on our capital city, on our citizens and on our way of life. The Prime Minister has movingly articulated the profound sorrow that we all feel following this atrocity. On behalf of all my colleagues, I want to join the Prime Minister in extending our deepest sympathy to the families and friends of those who have lost their lives. Nothing will make up for their loss. We share the grief of those who were nearest and dearest to them and we mourn with them. We feel also for those who have been injured and wish them a full and speedy recovery. I welcome what the Prime Minister said about the help given to the families that have been so dreadfully affected.

The faceless killers behind last Thursday's attack brought death and tragedy to many innocent families. They have tried with the fires of hate to destroy the bonds of love. Yet since their attack, we have seen compassion and self-sacrifice prove themselves stronger than fanaticism and evil. The emergency services, the police, the ambulance service, paramedics, firefighters, doctors and nurses, as well as the bus drivers and the tube workers have all shown quite exemplary dedication. They have been joined by many others in the rescue operation. Those people have had to carry out, and are still carrying out, some dreadful work in what are often horrific conditions and they have responded with a professionalism that has won praise the world over.

This single act of evil has inspired numerous acts of private heroism—from the bus drivers who carried on their work on a day of fear and mourning to the charity workers, like the Salvation Army and the others to which the Prime Minister referred, who brought comfort to the grieving and offered a listening ear to the bereaved. Thousands played a notable part in the events of a terrible day. We all have cause to feel pride in the response of our fellow citizens. Any who doubted that, 60 years on, this generation of Britons had retained the resolve to stand united against the threats we face have found their answer.

Although those who perpetrated last Thursday's outrage may think that they succeeded in their aims, they failed to achieve what they would have wanted most. They failed to cause panic in our capital city. Instead, we went about our business, determined to show that we would not be defeated. They failed to undermine the institutions, the democracy and the values of which we are all so justly proud. Instead, our Government, our citizens and our way of life proved once again resilient in the face of evil. And the terrorists failed to divide us, one from another. They failed to incite one group in our national community to blame another. The very society—multifaith and multicultural—that stands as an affront to the warped ideology of the terrorists is a source not of weakness, as they suppose, but of strength. In our great capital city and beyond, the terrorists have united Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, those of all faiths and those of none in our contempt for those who want to destroy that diversity and our democratic and liberal way of life.

It is clear that one of the challenges now will be to achieve the right balance between that liberalism and the security that we all want. The security services in Britain are some of the finest in the world. They are, alas, very experienced in dealing with the threat of terrorism. We know that they have thwarted recent attempts to attack our nation, and we appreciate that it is in the nature of their work that we cannot be aware of all they have done to protect us.

I should like to pay tribute to the Prime Minister and to the Government for all their efforts since 11 September to safeguard this country from terror. I know how heavy that responsibility is, and I understand the difficulty of the decisions that Ministers must take when they are given information about threats that, by their very nature, cannot be openly broadcast. I assure the Prime Minister that we Conservatives wish to give the Government our full support as they face difficult decisions in future. We wish to play our part by making constructive suggestions that we hope will help establish a durable consensus on the best measures to safeguard us all.

Now is not the time for a discussion on detail. What I do hope, however, is that in the weeks ahead we can all gain from a sober assessment of the systems that we have put in place to deal with the terrorist threat. I have no doubt at all that the Prime Minister wishes to learn all the appropriate lessons that can be learned. We emphatically do not believe that after Thursday's events there is any place for finger pointing or for the allocation of blame. There is only one group of people who should be blamed, and that is the evil terrorists who carried out the deed.

We are all in this together. In due course, I believe that we may be able together to identify even better ways of providing the security our citizens deserve. A limited inquiry could in due course provide a calm and dispassionate forum for learning appropriate ideas, helping to quell unhelpful speculation and equipping us to respond even better in future. Its precise form would, rightly, be a judgment for the Government. We have no preconceived ideas about its timing or composition, and of course we recognise that nothing should be done to distract the police or the security services from the immediate task in hand, which is to bring to justice the perpetrators of last week's atrocity. We wish only to identify how best we can provide our police and our security services with the support they deserve in future.

The eyes of the world were on London last Wednesday for the best of reasons. They were drawn to our capital city again on Thursday by scenes of unimaginable horror. But our citizens and our Government have responded in a way of which we can all be proud. In the days ahead, that spirit of defiance, resolution and determination should not be lost. We owe it to the victims of last Thursday's bombs to remember that terrorists should never profit from their embrace of evil.

First, let me thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman very much, not only for his words today, but for demonstrating such unity and dignity in the face of such evil. That is an important message to send out from this country. The fact that he has responded in that way is another reason why we will succeed and the terrorists will fail. I thank him for that most sincerely.

I entirely agree with the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made and I just want to make one point. It is important, if we possibly can, that when we come to look at any future legislation, we try to establish it on the basis of a consensus. If it is possible to do that, we should, and I assure him that I will work to see that that is done. It may be easier in these circumstances, with everyone coming together with good will, to ensure that that is done.

I certainly agree that we have to analyse carefully what can be learned from this. There may be ways that that can be done in the future. The priority at the moment, obviously, is not to do anything to distract from the job in hand, but we would be foolish if we were not continually assessing how we can make our provision work better. I think, too, that there are other things that we need to do when we look at co-operation internationally. We will look, together with other countries, at how we can improve that. It was very heartening to see the immediate response of virtually every major intelligence service in the world. They wanted to help and they are now helping. In the wake of something terrible such as these events, there is information that can come to light. There is much that we are doing, both within our intelligence services and in co-operation with others to work on that.

I repeat my thanks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to his colleagues, who have behaved so well and demonstrated such necessary unity. It also brings a certain reassurance to our country in difficult times.

May I associate entirely my right hon. and hon. Friends with the sentiments that we have just heard from both the leader of the Conservative party and the Prime Minister? May I express also our profound sympathies to those who have lost their lives or suffered injury—in many cases, serious injury—and to their families and friends? May I also express the wish that the perpetrators of the mass murder in our capital city a few days ago are hunted down by the relevant authorities and brought to justice, so that an example is shown not just within our own shores, but to the rest of the world, of the efficiency and dependability of the British system of justice in dealing with an outrage such as this?

May I also pay tribute to the emergency services? Last Thursday, as we moved around the capital near some of the problem areas where the bombs went off, many of us were able to see the heroism of all involved, and not just in the immediate response, despite the terrible loss of life that was recorded. Heaven knows how much worse it would have been had the emergency services, on the hour and at the time, not been prepared in many cases—as we know from the horrific accounts that have emerged—to risk their own lives to save other lives.

I also wish to pay tribute to the work of the security services. It is easy—and we all hear it from time to time through the mass media—to criticise the security services. By definition and given the nature of their work, nine times out of 10 we never learn about the success stories. They may come to light, if at all, only years and years after some dreadful event has been successfully thwarted. Opposition party leaders have found it very helpful over the past few days to receive briefings from some of the Prime Minister's senior advisers. We very much appreciate that.

I was glad that the Prime Minister, in his peroration, drew attention to the role of the Muslim community in our country. As he has reflected, last week was one of unbelievable contrasts for London. One of the many aspects that made London such an attractive and successful option for the Olympics—its multi-ethnic, multicultural diversity, which is in the main a cause for celebration not just for our country but worldwide—equally makes it a magnet for people who want to perpetrate wicked deeds. Has the Prime Minister been able to hold any discussions with leaders of the Muslim community, who are, as he knows, deeply troubled and concerned about a spate of attacks on mosques in various parts of the country over the past few days? Will he again underscore the determination of all of us, as community representatives in the House, to emphasise that the overwhelming majority of those of Muslim faith in Britain completely condemn the people who commit deeds such as those perpetrated on communities in London?

Does the Prime Minister agree that another image from yesterday was most encouraging? We saw our Church leaders standing shoulder to shoulder in Lambeth palace to make the point that, irrespective of faith, all right-thinking people of faith do not countenance in any way the desperate approach of those people, whoever they prove to be, who carry out bombing and terrorism.

Even in these early days after the events, has the Prime Minister received further requests from the Metropolitan police for a strengthening of their numbers, given the sheer volume of assessment and sifting and revisiting of old evidence that they have to carry out? Would the Government look favourably on such a request?

I very much welcome the Prime Minister's comments in reply to the leader of the Conservatives about the need for close consultation with the police and agencies, particularly where further legislation may be involved. Will that close consultation also involve the other political parties? As the Prime Minister knows, we have argued for the introduction of a new offence, acts preparatory to terrorism, and we would feed such suggestions constructively into such discussions.

The Home Secretary will convene an important meeting in Brussels on Wednesday. Can the Prime Minister give a further indication of what the Government may be examining to widen the scope for access to e-mails and the role of the telecommunications agencies in that respect?

A mature parliamentary democracy must react as exactly that in the light of such events. We have heard measured and determined statements from the Government and the Prime Minister over the past few days, and the whole country is grateful for that. As long as the Government continue to adopt that tone and approach, they deserve and will certainly receive wholehearted support.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his supportive remarks. I will deal briefly with the points he made.

Obviously, I echo the right hon. Gentleman's thanks to the emergency services. I pay tribute to the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, and to Westminster city council. They helped enormously both in the arrangements for the emergency services and in dealing with the aftermath of the terrorist attack.

There have been several meetings with leaders of the Muslim community and I am pleased with their response, which was immediate and definitive.

The Metropolitan police will obviously have the resources they need. We shall discuss further legislation across political parties. The Home Secretary will meet his colleagues on Wednesday; there will be an open agenda, but they will obviously discuss how they can best co-operate in defeating terrorism.

My right hon. Friend will know that two of the bombs exploded in my constituency, and I am sure that he will join me in commending the good sense of the vast majority of local people of all colours, cultures and religions in the area for remaining united in the face of this calamity and in the face of a limited number of evil people who wish to exploit the situation by stirring up religious hatred; but may I, on behalf of my constituents, also raise a deeply felt concern of local people, firefighters and others in the emergency services about the future security around the King's Cross/ St. Pancras area? The London fire authority has been planning for some time to withdraw some fire engines from three local fire stations—Euston, Clerkenwell and Islington—on the grounds that

"the current location of appliances does not relate to today's risks".

Thursday clearly demonstrated that they do relate directly to today's risks. Will he join me in saying to the fire authority that there should be no sense of shame or embarrassment in learning from experience and reconsidering that proposal?

First, I extend my sympathy to my right hon. Friend's constituents whose lives have been disrupted in this way. I am aware of the issue to do with the local firefighting resources around King's Cross and St. Pancras. I think that the best thing is to say that we will obviously consider any points made, and I will get back to him.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. As the Member of Parliament for the constituency where the other two bombs, sadly, went off, I should also like entirely to endorse the sentiments of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson). The Prime Minister was absolutely right in every particular, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear in his measured statement that we feel that this is not the time to rush in any way to judgment. Mindful, though, of the importance of maintaining the generally excellent relations between the different racial, ethnic and faith communities in our cities, I should like to ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that all the UK's Muslim religious and community leaders take the initiative now to prevent any backlash by making public statements in their home towns unequivocally condemning the perpetrators of last Thursday's atrocities.

Meetings are taking place between the Home Secretary and the leaders of the community, and other members of the Government are meeting members of the community. Obviously, Downing street has been in contact with them, too. I have to say that there is no difficulty whatever in stating unequivocally that the vast majority of the Muslim community are completely condemnatory of those attacks and regard them as a betrayal of the true faith of Islam, and I am sure that that is right. Obviously, we will continue to get regular reports on community relations. It is remarkable, although I do not believe that it is surprising, that communities in London have not responded in a way that has divided people; on the contrary, they have been extremely unified in the response that they have made.

Does the Prime Minister agree that last week's attacks on our great city of London were an attack on people of all faiths and communities? We stand united against the perpetrators of those evil, barbaric acts of terrorism. Can he assure me that the Government recognise that the overwhelming majority of the Muslims who live in this country are tolerant, law-abiding citizens who respect other religions and do not support terrorism? Can he assure me that the Government will do everything they can to prevent any backlash against Muslims?

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend of that, and the whole House will agree with his sentiments, which come particularly strongly from him as, I think, the first Muslim MP in the House. I know that he speaks for the whole Muslim community, apart from a very small number of extremists, in this country.

I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree with me that great grief is never great at talking and that it is the silence noted by the tear in the eye, the lump in the throat and the pressure of hand upon hand that speaks volumes. I am sure today that we are proud of our country, in that there has been silence and not shouts. There has been quiet dignity and the strength of determination that a better day is coming for this country when we shall see the scourge of terrorism, from whatever source, cleaned from our ranks and people.

I pay tribute to Her Majesty the Queen. Whatever our views may be, I am sure that there is unity around the monarch at a time like this. I was thrilled to see the crowds that came and said to the terrorists, "We don't care about your threats. We're going to demonstrate where our loyalty lies." That needs to be emphasised.

May I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the words of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition to the Prime Minister? We pay tribute to the Prime Minister as well. He had a hard week, flying here, there and everywhere. He had good days, but very grim and sad days, and the whole country can salute him today and thank him for his guidance.

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for those kind words. I echo entirely his sentiments about Her Majesty the Queen. His feeling of solidarity with the victims of terrorism is obviously especially powerful as it comes from him and his colleagues, who lived for so long with the threat of terrorism. I thank him for that very much.

Is it not of interest that some of the people who blame Government policies for what the murderous psychopaths did last Thursday are, in some instances, the very people who opposed military action in Kosovo to stop the ethnic cleansing of Muslims and, even more so, the liberation of Kuwait, which was 85 per cent. Muslim, from enemy occupation 14 years ago? Is it not rather important that the people to whom I am referring—we know that there are one or two in the House from a speech made last Thursday—should stop making excuses for the mass murderers, whose hatred of humanity is no less than the Nazis'?

Obviously I agree with what my hon. Friend says. It is worth pointing out that 11 September happened in 2001—before any of the military action. Many people are killed by the same type of terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan when they try to exercise their democratic rights there.

The Prime Minister will know that the whole House supports the counselling and support services that have been set up to help the families of the bereaved and the injured. Many of our constituents who work in the emergency and transport services will still be involved in the rescue and many will have complex and long-term reactions to the horror of the occasion. Can he assure me that proper counselling and support services will be available to all those people, whenever they are needed, so that we can ensure that our constituents get the best possible treatment that they need, too?

Yes, I can give that assurance. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That was one of the things that we discussed at our meeting earlier today. It is essential that we keep the support there for as long as the families need it.

I am grateful for the Prime Minister's reassurance that the families' support will continue. May I further ask him to continue supporting and working with bereavement charities such as Cruse, which have played a crucial role after disasters both here and abroad?

Yes, I assure my hon. Friend that we will do everything that we can to continue working with the charities that do such an excellent job in that area.

May I, as a London MP, join my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition in passing compliments to the Prime Minister for his behaviour at the time of the explosion? Had I been in that position, I would have behaved in no other way at all, so I pass him my compliments directly for his behaviour and for uniting us and giving us real focus. May I also join with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who pointed out that those who have spent the past three days trying to divide us by blaming everyone for the reasons behind this were not only wrong, but shameful? The best answer to them was to be found in constituencies such as mine on Saturday and Sunday. There were wonderful crowds who gathered on Sunday to show the terrorists what they thought of them. They do not care about the terrorists; they care about peace. I and my constituents promise the Prime Minister and the Government that we will do our level best to back him in whatever he does to find these people.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much indeed for that.

As one of those who opposed the military action in Iraq, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that those who have been arguing over the past few days that what happened took place only because of that action are talking not only nonsense but dangerous nonsense? We are dealing with a group of Islamo-fascists who are against any form of democratic politics, and on that we should all be united.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I thank him for those words.

The Prime Minister said earlier that it seems probable that the attack was carried out by Islamist extremist terrorists. He will be aware of the remarks over the weekend by the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, now Lord Stevens, who suggested that about 3,000 young home-grown people in this country are prepared to undertake the sort of terrorist activity, in the name of religion, that we saw last week. What plans do the Government have to rid this country of some of the extremist clerics who, when they are not fanning the flames of fundamentalism, are preaching sedition throughout this country?

We need to look carefully at those who are inciting such hatred in our community. That is something that we should consider over the next few months as we consider what the right response throughout the country to the attack is. As for the numbers of those who are engaged in this type of extremism, it is difficult to judge. I recall that a few months ago when I suggested that there might be several hundred such people that the security services were looking at, there were people rather questioning of that. It is difficult to be accurate. It is difficult as well when those who are engaged in these attacks were born and bred in this country. I chose my words carefully because I think that, until we can provide some more definitive information as to who exactly was behind these attacks and their identity, it is as well to proceed with some caution. At present, I am not in a position to say definitively exactly who they were and whether they were people from this country or from outside.

I endorse everything that my right hon. Friend has said about the position and the views of the Muslim community in this country. The number of those who would actively support or even apologise for the action is tiny, but it is the case that we can never give up on the battle for every heart and mind. In the weeks and months ahead, will my right hon. Friend, working with the leaders of the Muslim community, consider ways in which the Government can give every support to members of that community in every school, every college, every prison and every community, to ensure that there is no young person whose heart and mind we do not aim to win?

I think that my right hon. Friend is right. Obviously there is a limit to what we can do by conventional methods of security, although it is absolutely necessary to do everything that we can. As my right hon. Friend says, it is also a battle for hearts and minds. There is no doubt about that. This type of extremism that preys on a warped and perverted view of Islam does not have its roots here but in different parts of the world. None the less, it can spread its hateful doctrines elsewhere. I know that there are many people within the world of Islam who are looking at how moderate, sensible and true Muslims can rise up against this extremism and defeat it. In the end, part of the answer can come only from within.

On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru may I offer condolences to the relatives of people who died, who are missing, or who are maimed as the result of Thursday's atrocity? I hope for swift and early justice for the perpetrators, only after which should any operational inquiry take place. I endorse the Prime Minister's remarks about the spirit of Londoners, the courage of the emergency services and the role of the Islamic community in our country. On Saturday, Mr. Berlusconi said:

"Even intelligence from other countries shows the three Bs—Bush, Berlusconi and Blair—are considered the most exposed to this type of risk."

Has the Italian Prime Minister shared that intelligence information with our Prime Minister?

No. The one thing that is obvious from the long list of countries that have been victims of this type of terrorism that I read out is that it does not discriminate greatly between individual items of policy. I am afraid that I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it is a form of terrorism aimed at our way of life, not at any particular Government or policy. If we retreated on one front, they would simply make us retreat on another, so the only way to deal with it is to stand up to it and defeat it.

Is the Prime Minister aware that it seems that a significant number of people who lost their lives last Thursday came from Islington or worked there, as the tube line runs through the borough, as does the No. 30 bus route? Everyone in the borough condemns what happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Ms Thornberry) and I spent part of the weekend at the Muslim Welfare House in Finsbury Park, where there was complete condemnation of everything that happened, and full support for the police in trying to find the perpetrators of this outrage.

Will my right hon. Friend be cautious about the introduction of further anti-terrorist legislation that might reduce co-operation between the many communities in London and the Metropolitan police, because that co-operation is important in isolating and catching the people who perpetrated carnage on the streets of London? Does he endorse the points made by the Mayor about the need for understanding the multicultural nature of London's life and, indeed, the multicultural nature of the victims of the terrible atrocity last Thursday?

I endorse those comments completely, and I extend my sympathy and condolences to the families of any of my hon. Friend's constituents who may be victims of last Thursday's attacks. In respect of the legislation, it will be much easier if we can achieve some form of consensus. There is a balance to be struck, but it is sometimes difficult to strike it. My own view is that just using the normal processes of law will not be enough. On the other hand, we must be careful in whatever legislation we introduce that we do not traduce the very principles that we seek to uphold. That is the balance that we must try to strike, and I can only say that I will do my best to try to reach as broad a consensus as possible on any legislation that may be needed.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition rightly paid tribute to the Prime Minister's quiet and calm leadership, and recognised that the responsibility for legislation must rest with the Government. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister himself has talked about consensus, and did so again just now. Would he build on the consensus of the Lambeth declaration and the consensus exemplified in the House this afternoon by inviting the signatories to the Lambeth declaration, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and others to Downing street to discuss the next steps?

I am certainly happy to consider that, yes.

My right hon. Friend will know that there is intense speculation in the press that the bomb on the No. 30 bus was triggered by a suicide bomber. Can the Prime Minister clarify that specific point for the House; and does he have any information at this point in time about how the bombs were triggered on the underground?

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I think the best thing at the present time is to leave to the police any statements in relation to that. I know they will give as much information as they think is sensible or responsible. It is important that we proceed in giving that information or speculating on it only when they want to do so.

The Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition have spoken movingly in the House this afternoon. I endorse what the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said about Her Majesty. It is very good news that the major intelligence services in the world have offered their collaboration. Can we count on a corresponding degree of help from those and other countries in the matter of extradition, if we need it? Is the European common arrest warrant up and running now in the EU, and can it be counted on to work, if required, in the present situation?

I am not sure exactly how that will work in the present situation. Perhaps I can correspond with the hon. Gentleman on that. Clearly, we want to make sure that we have the maximum opportunity to co-operate with other European countries. For various reasons to do with legal systems, not with political leadership, that co-operation has not always worked as well it should, including from us to other European countries. We need to consider that carefully, and I am sure the matter will be covered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his meeting on Wednesday.

I stood in the Chamber on Wednesday and said how joyous and proud I was, as a lifelong Londoner, at my city's successful bid to host the Olympics in 2012. Does my right hon. Friend agree that today Londoners and the rest of the UK have even more reason to be proud of Londoners—proud of the way heroic Londoners of all faiths, races and backgrounds, victims, survivors and passers-by, acted on Thursday; proud of the way ordinary courageous Londoners carried on with their business and stopped the criminals disrupting our life; proud of the way our Mayor and emergency services behaved on Thursday and onwards; and finally, proud of the way Londoners have come together to stop any individual or community being the victim of any misconceived backlash or reprisal?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

A few moments ago the Prime Minister gave great and well deserved praise to the emergency services. Does he agree that we also need to recognise the many ordinary staff on the London Underground who are not emergency workers and who, on Thursday last, before the emergency services could come, put themselves directly in danger to give immediate assistance to those who were caught in the carnage, and dealt with horrors that most of us in the Chamber will never see and hope never to see? Will he join me in congratulating London Resilience, which did so much of the planning that meant that the response was so effective and helped to reinforce the calm and composure of Londoners? Will he let the House know that there are books of condolence open at city hall, which many hon. Members and others may wish to sign?

The hon. Lady is right. The books of condolence are there, and I hope that as many people as can get to sign them will do so. She is right, too, that the whole staff of the underground and the services—the hospital services and so on—have performed magnificently. I had an opportunity of meeting some of them on Friday, and they were remarkably strong about their experience. It is not just the emergency services that came on the scene—obviously, there are people at hospitals and elsewhere who are having to cope with an extremely difficult situation, and of course there are the people still engaged in the forensic work, and a very harrowing and difficult time it must be for them.

May I join the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland, in sharing the sense of hurt and horror at Thursday's events? One does not need to be a Briton or a Londoner to feel the effects and to feel the pain that the people of London felt. One does not need to be a Briton or a Londoner to salute the character and the calibre of the response from the city of London and its public services. I join so many others in the House in paying tribute to the resolve and resilience of the Prime Minister in the face of the threat. Does he agree that it is that blend of sense, strength and sensitivity that he has shown and which has been shown by many Members in the House today that needs to inform what we do in the future? Any decisions that we make and any points that we make, from whatever part of the House, must not give any succour or satisfaction to those who had an agenda on Thursday. They may not have been able to calculate the exact body count that they would get on Thursday, but they calculated that there would be other, wider fallout. No matter what policy differences we have on other issues, it is important that all of us are diligent enough to deny them their agenda.

I thank my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right in what he says about the right response to make. Coming from someone in Northern Ireland who has had to live his own politics with the possibility of violence and terrorism against his political party, his words are wise words that we should heed.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G8 summit which I chaired at Gleneagles last week.

There were two major issues on the agenda for this summit—Africa and climate change. Those subjects were chosen because they represent huge problems for the world which require concerted action by the international community. Africa is the only continent in the world that, without change, will not meet any of the millennium development goals. Although there are success stories in Africa, 4 million children under five die in Africa every year, 3,000 children a day die from malaria, and 50 million African children do not go to primary school. Life expectancy is plummeting, and by 2010 it will be down to just 27 years in some African countries. So Africa is an immediate moral cause that commands our attention.

Climate change is perhaps the most long-term serious threat to our environment. Already sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk by 1 million sq km, the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1991, and sea levels are rising. Until now, however, the international community has been divided, with no agreement on the nature or urgency of the problem, what to do about it, or how to start a discussion that would involve the United States and key emerging economies such as India and China.

The Commission for Africa, which I established last year, set out a comprehensive plan for dealing with the continent's problems. At Gleneagles, we agreed a doubling of aid for Africa—that is, an extra $25 billion a year by 2010—as part of an overall increase of $50 billion for all developing countries, which will start to flow immediately. That was made possible by a series of new pledges by G8 partners in the weeks before the summit—notably, the European Union's aid increase of an extra $38 billion, the American and Canadian decisions to double aid to Africa, and Japan's pledge, at the summit, of an additional $10 billion over the next five years. That is a mighty achievement, not only for the summit but for the millions of decent people world wide who have campaigned so long and hard on this issue. I should like to thank not only fellow leaders but my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary and, most particularly, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for their work in securing this.

In addition, again thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we agreed to cancel 100 per cent. of the multilateral debts of the heavily indebted poor countries. That could amount in total to some $55 billion of relief. We also agreed a special package of debt cancellation for Nigeria worth around $17 billion.

The G8 put particular emphasis on health and education in Africa. We agreed free primary education and basic health care for all, and we agreed these specific measures: on HIV/AIDS, to provide as close as possible to universal access to treatment by 2010; on malaria, to reach 85 per cent. of the vulnerable with bed nets and drugs in order to save around 600,000 children's lives a year by 2015; and on polio, the UK has agreed the funding to eradicate polio this year, and the G8 has agreed to ensure that the programme is fully funded in the years ahead.

However, that help will not make a difference unless we also take action to end conflict and create conditions of stability. That means, above all, supporting the African Union's ability to deploy its forces to prevent and resolve conflict. We confirmed our commitment to train and equip 75,000 troops by 2010, mainly for Africa, including for the 20,000-strong African Union stand-by force.

On trade, we agreed that we should establish a credible end date for agricultural export subsidies. The British Government want the Hong Kong world trade ministerial meeting to agree to an end date of 2010. I believe, on the basis of my discussions last week, that that is possible. We also agreed at Gleneagles concrete measures to build Africa's capacity to trade and recognised poor countries' need to determine their own economic and trade policies.

It was the most detailed and ambitious package for Africa ever agreed by the G8. However, none of it can be implemented or improve the lives of African citizens without significant improvements in standards of governance, transparency and accountability. It is a partnership, not an act of charity. In the end, only Africans can lead and shape Africa. We can help, but every Government in Africa who betrays the principles of good governance betrays Africa. The G8 unanimously deplored recent developments in Zimbabwe. The United Nations Secretary-General told us that his envoy, Anna Tibaijuka, will report back to the UN Security Council in days.

The summit of itself cannot end poverty in Africa but it should mark a turning point. I pay tribute to the organisations around the world whose members care passionately about Africa and who made their voice heard to the G8 leaders in the run-up to Gleneagles. It was a remarkable and brilliantly led campaign by people who have long demonstrated their commitment, and I particularly praise the contribution of Make Poverty History and the organisers of Live 8. Faith groups, schools, businesses and many millions of concerned people attached to no formal organisation made their demands, protested for them reasonably and gave political leaders the support that they needed to turn a campaign into a victory.

In respect of climate change, our discussion included the leaders of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico. We were able to do four things. First, we agreed that climate change was a problem, with human activity contributing to it. Secondly, we agreed that we had to tackle it with urgency. Thirdly, we agreed that, to do that, we have to slow down, stop and, in time, reverse greenhouse gas emissions. Gleneagles adopted an action plan to exploit cleaner technologies that meet our energy needs and safeguard the climate, including measures to develop technologies such as bioenergy and cleaner coal, to promote energy efficiency and finance investment in clean technologies in emerging economies.

Fourthly, we put in place a new dialogue involving the G8, the emerging economies and the key international institutions. The purpose is to create a pathway to a post-Kyoto agreement, so that when Kyoto expires after 2012, the world can act with unity. The new dialogue between the G8 plus the five and others will have its first meeting in the UK in November.

The G8 also gave its strong support to the middle east peace process and pledged its support for a package of assistance worth up to $3 billion a year for Palestine. We gave warm backing to the mission of Jim Wolfensohn, the Quartet's envoy for disengagement, who reported to us at the summit. I continue to believe that progress in the middle east between Israelis and Palestinians is an enormous part of creating a fairer and more secure world.

Inevitably, some will be disappointed with aspects of the G8 summit. However, on any realistic basis, on the two hardest issues on the international agenda, there was progress, and in the case of Africa, immense progress. We now have to build on that, using our EU presidency, the UN summit in September and the Hong Kong ministerial meeting on trade in December.

Of course, the task is now to implement what has been agreed. However, let us for a moment assume that we can. If we do so, millions of children will not die when otherwise they would have died. Africa will change its destiny from one of decline to advance. The values of democracy, freedom and the rule of law will be strengthened further still. On the environment, if we can implement what is agreed, today's largest economy can achieve agreement with the largest economies of tomorrow to get the framework, technology and policy in place to reverse the threat of global warming.

Such progress, if achieved, would be the most poignant and powerful riposte to the forces of terrorism.

This is an afternoon for consensus; we might be in danger of setting an entirely new trend. I congratulate the Prime Minister on what he achieved at the G8 summit. Although it was overshadowed by the atrocity in London, substantial progress was made there. That was in large measure due to the work done by the Prime Minister and others, not only at Gleneagles but in the run-up to the conference.

At Gleneagles, the Prime Minister was fighting for policies and principles that are widely shared across the country. The success of Live 8 and the work of the Make Poverty History campaign have played their part in focusing world attention on these issues, and the Prime Minister's response was entirely appropriate and welcome. Of course international summits, by their very nature, cannot live up to all the hopes invested in them. The Prime Minister has accepted that he did not achieve everything that he wanted to achieve, but the agreements on world poverty and on climate change hold out the prospect of further advances later this year.

We all know what is at stake. In Africa, 8,000 people die every day from HIV/AIDS, while 7,000 die from hunger and 6,000 die from waterborne diseases. These are people who share this planet with us, and we have a moral, as well as a practical, imperative to help them. That is why we welcome the agreements that were reached on aid and on debt relief. We wholeheartedly support the Government's position on both those issues. Will the Prime Minister tell us, however, what proportion of the aid is new money? Will he also say more about the timing of the aid? How much will be delivered immediately and how much in the latter half of the decade? There is also cross-party support for the international finance facility, including the IFF for immunisation. The communiqué is very non-committal on that issue, however. Will the Prime Minister tell us what prospects there are for further agreement on that proposal?

I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree that aid and debt relief are only part of the package that will help Africa to secure a permanent escape from poverty. We all recognise the need to make progress in securing free and fair trade. Protectionism by developed countries at the expense of the developing world is immoral and hypocritical, and it must come to an end. The key meeting on that issue will be the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in Hong Kong later this year, and one of the key issues at that meeting will be the removal of export subsidies by the developed countries. Progress was made on that issue at Gleneagles, but no date was set. The Prime Minister has set out his objective for Hong Kong. Will he give us a fuller assessment of the likelihood of progress in that regard?

The communiqué made clear the G8's commitment to strengthening the multilateral trading system and improving the participation of developing countries. The Prime Minister will be aware of our proposals for an advocacy fund, which would help developing countries to make the most of the opportunities that will be made available to them in Hong Kong. Even if the Prime Minister does not accept that specific proposal, will he assure me that he will examine additional alternative means of achieving that goal?

We welcome the fact that the G8 deplores recent developments in Zimbabwe. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what discussions he had with President Mbeki, who is in a better position than anyone to take action to bring to an end the suffering in that troubled land?

On climate change, as on world poverty, we support the Government's overall approach. I recognise that it took political courage to put climate change on the agenda at a G8 summit, given the lack of consensus on how to proceed. The Prime Minister has made progress, but not as much as we all would have liked. The challenge at Gleneagles was not necessarily to agree on a series of new targets there and then, but to provide the impetus for an agreement of that kind that would bind in the United States, China and India as well as the Kyoto signatories. How do the Government intend to achieve that through the dialogue that will now take such matters forward? Will the Prime Minister tell us which other interested countries will be invited to join that dialogue, and when in the second half of the year he proposes to hold meetings to make progress on that agenda? Can he also clarify the purpose of the United Kingdom's international conference in November? Does he envisage that that meeting will lead to binding commitments on the participants, particularly with regard to the plan of action?

We welcome the communiqué's emphasis on the need to invest in and share clean energy technologies. Does the plan of action guarantee new funding for the development of such technologies? If not, can the Prime Minister give us his assessment of the prospects for securing such funding during the remainder of Britain's G8 presidency?

Climate change is undoubtedly one of the most important challenges facing the world today, and it is essential that it does not drop down the agenda for the remainder of this year and beyond. With Britain having secured a lasting legacy from its G8 presidency on aid and debt, is not it essential that we work to secure a lasting legacy on trade and climate change, too?

The test of the G8 was to provide an impetus that would increase the prospects of a successful outcome in both Montreal and Hong Kong. Last week's summit has certainly moved us in the right direction, but does the Prime Minister agree that the real test of success will come in Hong Kong and Montreal?

Again, let me thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his broad agreement with what we have tried to achieve and what we did achieve at the G8. This has been a day for consensus, but I am sure that we can find many areas on which to disagree if we think hard enough in the time to come.

On aid and debt relief, in respect of the new money aspect, I am somewhat puzzled by some of the people who have been claiming that it is all recycled money. It is absolutely clear to me that the EU commitment is additional, the Japanese commitment is definitely additional, and as far as I am aware, Canada and the US are agreeing to double their aid from their present position. Although people keep saying that there is an issue about whether it is new money, it seems to me certainly true that it is, at least the vast bulk of it.

In respect of timing, the aid and debt relief can start to flow straightaway—and should do so. Some aspects, such as the international finance facility, will take some time to establish, although in respect of the immunisation programme, for example, people are making a start now on financing in an innovative way. We can therefore start to see the benefits soon, and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly says, it is absolutely urgent.

In respect of trade, I would like the 2010 date to be reached in Hong Kong in December. Whether we can do so, I do not know. President Bush indicated that he would support 2010. I understand and accept that some people felt it was important that whatever dates were given were given in the context of the trade round and that we should not try to overlay a G8 process on a WTO process. I understand that, but it should not prevent us from having a forward position, which is absolutely necessary for the poorest countries. In the communiqué, we specifically indicated the importance of building the trade capacity of those countries, which in a sense is the same idea as is behind the advocacy fund.

I totally agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says about Zimbabwe. Obviously, I discussed the matter with President Mbeki and Kofi Annan. There will be an opportunity when the report from the United Nations envoy is received by the UN Security Council.

Let me be clear about what the problem always is in dealing with Zimbabwe. Although there is no dispute, in any quarter of the House, about the abhorrence that we feel for what is happening in Zimbabwe, once one gets past the expression of abhorrence, the question is: what do we do? The truth is that it is clear that the matter is best dealt with through the United Nations and through putting pressure on those countries in the immediate vicinity. We will continue to do that in any way that we can, and to get anything else that we can in terms of EU or UN measures or sanctions. The only way that the situation in Zimbabwe will come to an end, however, is through concerted international action, particularly from those countries neighbouring Zimbabwe. I confess that, although I suppose I understand what causes the reluctance, I cannot really excuse it, and I cannot understand why it should continue, given the evidence of what has happened to what is, after all, potentially a wealthy country. That is the terrible tragedy. I think that we are agreed on that.

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he said about climate change. He is absolutely right. Part of the trouble is that people will say we have not achieved what we never set out to achieve. There was no way in which we could negotiate new climate change agreements or targets here. We need to peel away some of the rhetoric on climate change. Let us be clear: there is no way in which climate change will ever be dealt with without agreement between the United States, China and India—and the European Union, obviously. Without those three countries it will not happen. In the years ahead, the huge consumers of energy will be China and India, and they are willing to join a dialogue, and so is America.

People claim that it is wrong to say that technology is the answer. It is wrong to say that technology can do what is necessary by itself, but it is not wrong to say that technology is the essential part of the process. We need to develop a framework of incentives that allows the technologies to be developed. I hope that, through the dialogue, we will secure a report on the action plan from Gleneagles—that is obviously important—as well as exchanges of information leading eventually, I hope, to an agreement on technology transfer between the United States, the other wealthy countries, and China and India. China is building power stations at the rate of—I do not know—[Hon. Members: "One a week."] One a week. People can say what they like about the United States of America, but unless we can achieve a clean development of that technology it will not really make a difference.

Russia has agreed to put the issue on the agenda for next year, but Japan has agreed to make it one of the centrepieces of its G8 summit in 2008. We need to develop the dialogue so that—this is crucial—when the Kyoto target period ends in 2012, the world is in agreement again, with radical measures that can be implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly.

As for the funding of technologies, again I agree, but it is worth pointing out that the United States of America invests more in clean technology research and development than all the other countries in the world put together. We need to do more, but it is worth pointing that out.

The Prime Minister is undoubtedly to be congratulated on what was, for the best and happiest of reasons as well as for the most dreadful, an extraordinary week. It was a considerable achievement to produce a coherent communiqué from the G8 members, given everything else that properly demanded his attention and presence.

It has been said by many, but cannot be said often enough, that the approach of those making perfectly legitimate points about the G8—the Make Poverty History campaigners and those involved in Live 8 as well as the leaders themselves—was in such moral contrast to the scenes that we witnessed in London that it will stand the test of history. It will be seen as the way in which to go about things, both by decision-makers and by citizens around the globe seeking, properly and legitimately, to influence those decision-makers.

Does the Prime Minister accept that the agreements reached by the G8 countries at Gleneagles will be judged not on the basis of promises made, but on the basis of the promises that are fulfilled in the months and years to come? The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say in the context of Africa—and we have supported him throughout—that many of the initiatives rely heavily on the willingness of African leaders to root out corruption and improve governance on their own continent and in their own countries. That is, of course, vital. As the G8 rolls on year after year, however, it is also important for us to have mechanisms ensuring that all its members fulfil the pledges into which they so willingly enter in a rather public way, as they did at the end of the Gleneagles summit by putting their signatures on the documents in front of the cameras.

The Prime Minister said a few moments ago that, so far as EU finances were concerned, British contributions definitely constituted new additional money, but perhaps he could be a bit more specific about the UK context. Will any new funds for the commitments given be drawn from the Department for International Development's existing budget, or will all such funds be supplementary to it? As the Prime Minister knows, this remains an abiding source of interest and legitimate concern to many of those who follow DFID's work in detail.

I also welcome the $3 billion-worth of aid pledged to the Palestinian Authority. That far-sighted move is good news that surely must command not only cross-party support in our country, but broad international support. Were any conditions placed on this aid package so far as the Palestinian Authority are concerned, and was it possible—either formally or in the margins of the G8—to discuss advancing the road map and the way forward?

On trade and the elimination of subsidies, how does the Prime Minister intend to progress that part of the agenda? Can he explain the disjunction between the agreement—entered into in principle at Gleneagles—to attack agricultural subsidies in the west, and the parallel universe of the simultaneous lack of progress in the WTO trade talks, which are under way in Geneva? The Prime Minister will accept that that disjunction presents a real difficulty.

Finally, it is significant—indeed, it reflects the balance of the package that emerged from Gleneagles—that the section of the Prime Minister's statement devoted to the all-important issue of climate change was significantly shorter than the sections devoted to other headline matters discussed at the G8. Does he agree—he has more than alluded to this point this afternoon—that the Gleneagles agreements on climate change, in so far as they exist, constitute little more than treading water, and that we will not achieve real success until we have a concrete, target-based, country-based successor to the Kyoto process? He spoke of a pathway and the leader of the Conservatives spoke of impetus and dialogue—the other buzzwords of communiqués and statements during, and concerning, the summit. Were any specific steps actually agreed at Gleneagles to reduce emissions, because that is the bottom line?

Earlier in the year, the Prime Minister set out three tests for the success of his G8 presidency—and fairly so—in addressing climate change: agreement on the basic science; agreement on the process to speed up provision of the technology necessary to meet the threat; and engagement with other countries with growing energy needs, China and India being the most obvious and notable examples. He has mentioned this issue already, but now that he has got through this amazing week, culminating in the summit's conclusion, it would be interesting to hear the answer to the following question, which I ask in no sense pejoratively. Following Gleneagles and thus far into his presidency, to what extent has he been able to meet the objective tests that he set himself, and does he agree that there is much further to go on climate change? As long as he keeps pressing that case, he deserves practical and political support.

First, the right hon. Gentleman is right: the promises have got to be fulfilled. On the other hand, there is evidence that such measures are already working. For example, several hundred thousand people are getting relief from HIV/AIDS through the drugs currently going in. Such things can be done, that is for sure. There are countries that, as a result of debt relief, have been able to put their children into primary school education for the first time. Also represented at Gleneagles were the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the African Union, so there will be a lot of follow through. September's UN millennium summit will also focus greatly on these issues.

On the new money, so far as we are concerned, the budget for the Department for International Development is rising. We are putting it up every year—it has risen dramatically—and there is the international finance facility as well. For obvious reasons, because of what happened on Thursday, the announcement by Japan's Prime Minister Koizumi of $10 billion extra over the next five years is significant and would not have happened but for the focus of the G8 at that moment. I am not saying that it would not have been done later, but it was significant that it came then.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the Palestinian Authority. Disengagement will be very difficult for Israel, but it is important that there is support for the Palestinian Authority so that it can begin the basic structures of statehood after disengagement. We can then take that further, something I am sure President Bush is determined to do. We discussed the issue at length at Gleneagles.

On trade, I have given the date of 2010. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a difference between what happened at Gleneagles and what is happening with the WTO, but that is not entirely fair. It is important to realise that what is holding up the WTO is not simply agricultural subsidies—on the contrary, we think that we can get agreement on those—and not simply G8 countries. It is important that we make sure that other countries recognise that they have a responsibility for this, not simply the G8. The head of the WTO was at Gleneagles and briefed us on the obstacles, which were not primarily G8 countries. It is important, of course, that we make a difference.

On climate change, the right hon. Gentleman was wrong to say that we were simply treading water. I am not overselling this, but the position of the international community was that there was no agreement on the science, no agreement on the need to take action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, no agreement that we needed to act with urgency and no agreement on a process for going forward. The international community was, I am afraid, sundered on this issue.

It is true that we have not made a new agreement—the G8 was never going to be able to do that—but we should refer to the three things to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded. We have no agreement on the basic science, but there is agreement for the first time that climate change is a reason for tackling the issue, as well as energy security and supply. There has been some coming together on that.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about action, and there is a plan of action, with measures concerning industry and energy efficiency. That is precisely the action to speed up the technology. Most important, there is an agreement on process. Let us be clear; there is a weakness with Kyoto. We support Kyoto and will meet our Kyoto targets; I am not sure how many other countries will. But the basic issue is the concern that as China, in particular, and India emerge strongly as economies, they will be competing with us economically. We must make sure that we bind them into the process, and they have agreed to be bound in.

Part of America's concern—we accept that there have been disagreements over Kyoto and over the science—is that other countries who have been happy to hide behind America in these matters should now share in the process. As those economies emerge and become immensely strong and powerful, there must be some common sharing of the problem. We are prepared to share the technology, which was one of the important things to come out of Gleneagles. But a situation in which there were tough targets for the developed world and no obligations on the developing world would be difficult to sell to our own people here. That is why I say that this is a pathway to a fresh agreement after Kyoto that will take us further than the right hon. Gentleman thought.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving a greater sense of purpose at this G8 summit than at any previous one that I can recall? Whatever criticism is now being made of the aid and debt package, is not the outcome a far better deal than anyone could have dared hope for only six months ago?

On the issue of follow-through, Russia takes over the presidency next year and may not have our long experience and ties with Africa. Will my right hon. Friend consider what structures we could create within the G8 to maintain the momentum that he has started and to ensure that future summits review progress and commitments that will necessarily take some years to fulfil?

I thank my right hon. Friend for his supportive statements. Yes, we certainly should consider what follow-up mechanisms are necessary. On climate change, it is clear that we will follow up, particularly given that the problem has been identified for the Japan summit of 2008. However, in co-operation with the UN, we must ensure that we also follow up in respect of Africa. If we reach this time next year and find that some of these great policies have not been pushed through, there will, quite rightly, be a great deal of cynicism. We must make sure that we push the policies forward.

On trade, President Bush has made it clear that he is prepared to reduce agricultural subsidies if the European Union also does so. What does the Prime Minister think about the French position on this matter? If the EU negotiates as one in respect of the WTO, we may move forward only at the slowest pace, so has the Prime Minister been able to make any progress with respect to the French position on this matter?

We have agreed that we will set a credible end date. That includes the European Union position, which includes the French position. We have not actually set the date, but it has been agreed that such a date will be set and that substantial progress on this matter will have to be made at the Hong Kong ministerial meeting. I cannot be absolutely certain, but my sense is that we are on track to reach an agreement in 2010. The French position, to be fair, is that they are prepared to act if other countries are also prepared to act on their subsidies.

On aid and debt relief, the G8 summit was clearly an enormous success, for which my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor both deserve huge credit. However, if we are to assist African development, is it not right for us to cancel debt unconditionally, rather than make it conditional on forcing some of the world's very poorest countries to open up their markets when, before they are able to build up their own industries, they are not remotely in a position to face the full force of international economic competition?

If President Bush is still unwilling to take any serious meaningful action to combat climate change, should we not be doing far more to reach out to the large, growing and influential group of US political and industrial leaders who are prepared to tackle the problem? For example, there is the Republican governor of California, the Republican mayor of New York, the chief executive of General Electric and the mayors, I believe, of about 140 cities across the US—all of whom have voluntarily decided to enforce carbon emission reductions within their own jurisdictions.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his words. On trade, we are very clear in the communiqué that the opening of markets should be viewed from the point of view of the developing world as a process in which developing countries need to have the capacity to trade effectively. Free trade is in their interests in the end, but if it were to happen overnight without a proper process for those countries to engage in and to construct that necessary capacity, it would be difficult for them. That is one of the reasons why we have increased aid—in order to allow them to try to achieve that. We also made the point that it is necessary for many of the African countries to try to break down the barriers of trade between themselves, as there are still major tariff barriers within Africa as well. We have taken my right hon. Friend's point well on board.

As to climate change, the climate group that we have established does precisely what my right hon. Friend mentioned. It involves the state of California, businesses and other countries that share our perspective. In the end, it depends on what people want. I think that, if there is a willingness—and I think that there is—for the Administration to engage on this issue, we might as well engage them and see where we get to. We can pursue the other dimensions with the states, business and industry at the same time. It is important to remember, as I often say, that the Kyoto treaty was, unfortunately but truly, rejected by 100 to nothing in the US Senate under the previous American President. Sometimes people see the US Administration as the only issue in respect of this matter, but I think that it is possible to move the debate forward and our engagement with other groups and people in America is an important part of that.

The House has received this report with gratitude, because, after all the negative statements that were made, it is nice to know that positive steps are being taken on health and on poverty issues, especially in Africa. I put the question, however, of agricultural export subsidies. The Prime Minister needs to know that the farming community in Northern Ireland is an essential part of our economy. That community has had no real standard of farm income for a long time, and there is considerable worry in the hearts of those men that maybe this year, or perhaps 2010, will be their last. Will they be consulted and will they know what steps are being taken and what the future holds?

This is obviously important. We need the farming community to be strong, and as the hon. Gentleman rightly says there is concern in Northern Ireland and elsewhere when people talk about phasing out subsidies. We have time to gear up for this, however, and it is important that we are in full consultation with the farming community about any decision that can be reached. I would say, too, that we can sometimes exaggerate the significance for the poorest countries, particularly in Africa, of the barriers we presently have on trade.

I applaud the $3 billion dollar package for the Palestinian Authority and my right hon. Friend's key role in helping to bring that about. Does he agree that, even so, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians will continue to live in poverty, deprivation and unemployment of third-world standards unless and until they can live in a free, independent and internationally recognised Palestine, and that pursuit of the road map is the key to achieving that?

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. It is important that disengagement and the support for the Palestinians is the first step towards a final negotiated settlement and not seen as an end in itself.

I warmly welcome the extra money for Africa and agree with the Prime Minister that that must go hand in hand with improving governance in many African countries. Did he discuss with his G8 colleagues whether we in the west can do any more to underpin good governance in African countries by supporting democracy, the rule of law and the general thrust towards freedom? Is there room, perhaps, for an initiative along the lines of the one that America introduced in relation to the middle east?

May I also thank the Prime Minister very much indeed for his leadership over the last few days?

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

We can provide help for democracy but should also make the important point to African countries, which I think a new generation of African leaders increasingly understands, that we could put all the aid in the world into Africa and it would make no difference unless it went into countries that had at least the beginnings of a proper judicial system, a proper commercial system, a proper fiscal system—

Property rights.

With property rights, and so on. That is very important. The lessons of what countries need to do to attract the right levels of private sector investment and so on are not hard to describe, even if it can be difficult to do. We can show how good governance has its own financial reward; without a shadow of a doubt, that is true. The other thing we can do, which we are working on with business, is the so-called extractive industries transparency initiative, which is to make sure that companies that pay money are open and transparent about the money so that we can root out the corruption that has bedevilled Africa for so long and that is so deeply unfair to its people. If we started to get the right systems of governance in place, the other thing that would happen is that the younger generation of highly talented Africans would want to stay to engage in the politics of their own country, which is tremendously important. Far too often, they have seen no future in that, and although international institutions benefit enormously from them, it would be better for their own countries if they were there.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in terms of the agenda for the G8, the genie is out of the bottle in a way that it has never been before? Over the past few weeks, I have visited Willowdene and St. Thomas More primary schools, where the children have demanded education for children in the developing world, and St. Thomas More secondary school, which is setting up its own fair trade canteen that will sell only fair trade goods. That is a sustainable development that will help future generations to understand the agenda of the G8 and what needs to be done. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such initiatives place an obligation on the people who are charged with delivering the communiqués from the G8 and future summits to make the difference that people want?

My hon. Friend is right. It is inspiring to see how many schools have taken the issues up. Obviously people were watching Live 8 in large numbers because of the strength of the show, but it was clearly also a demonstration of support for certain ideals. I know, from the massive correspondence with schools up and down the country and in different parts of the world, that something has been generated that is very positive for the future.

The Prime Minister wanted to get an end date for agricultural subsidies into the communiqué, but he was not able to do so. Does he now accept that the best way forward for agricultural change is through the WTO, or does he still intend to press for reform of the CAP during the British presidency? Is he aware that the New Zealand rapporteur of the agricultural text for the WTO has reported in the past few days how difficult it is to make progress? What can be done to keep people to that task and that deadline?

I would have preferred the date to be in the communiqué, although—to be fair—I understand why other countries said that that was not appropriate, that the WTO was the right place for that and that it should happen in Hong Kong. Well, let us ensure that it does happen there. As for the CAP, over the longer term, it is important that we move the European budget away from the irrational amount of support for agriculture. It is important also to realise that the difficulties that have been mentioned over the past few days are not simply in respect of Europe, nor in respect of Europe and America.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on the work that they have done, especially on Africa and trade? Will my right hon. Friend say more about the international financing arrangement? Is it intended that the promises that have been given for the future will be achieved more quickly through that arrangement? The international financing arrangement should mean that a uniformity of resource is available to bring about the changes my right hon. Friend intends much more quickly. Finally, can my right hon. Friend say whether the issue of the UN environmental programme was discussed, or is that an issue for the WTO agenda?

On the last point—

In relation to asbestos.

Yes, I think that will be a UN process.

My hon. Friend is right about the international finance facility. The purpose is to try to get aid moving more quickly. We will soon be able to finance the immunisation programme in that way, and that will be a huge advantage for many people in Africa.

The Prime Minister is to be warmly congratulated on having the courage to put climate change among his key issues. Nobody ever said that tackling climate change internationally would be an easy job, and I also understand that the key final negotiations took place on a particularly difficult day. However, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the result of the climate change negotiations is a bitter disappointment. Does the Prime Minister accept that, if we are to tackle climate change, we need an international coalition of the willing, and that, if the United States is not prepared to be willing, he may need to take a lead by building a consensus with other countries that are prepared to get on board? I am thinking in particular of India, China, Brazil and other emerging economies. Are there any circumstances in which he would envisage taking matters forward, perhaps on a temporary basis, without the United States?

It is a bitter disappointment only if people had an unreasonable expectation of what we could do at Gleneagles. The problem that I am focusing on is this: it is all very well for people to say, "What if America is not prepared to be part of the agreement?", but if America is not prepared to be part of an agreement post-Kyoto, China and India will be reluctant to enter consensus with others, except the type of consensus reached at Kyoto, which does not put strong obligations on powerful emerging economies. I regret to say that in my view there is no alternative to America and the major emerging economies being part of the consensus.

What America is prepared to do is to act with others on the issue and it is prepared to recognise that such action needs to be urgent. As was said a moment or two ago, there is also gathering support in America for such an idea, which will impose its own pressures on the political system. Whether America is prepared to go further and agree a framework of targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is something we need to work on through the dialogue that we have set up. To do it in the way that I described is the right way. Although Kyoto was a remarkable achievement, part of the problem is that it is difficult for more than 100 countries to try to negotiate an international agreement. The truth is that 70 per cent. of the emissions come from the eight plus five countries. The sensible thing is to find a pathway to a new agreement and that is the biggest ambition that we could have at this stage. We have come from a situation where people did not even talk about the issue, never mind about resolving it, to an occasion where they are doing that, with at least some common principles of understanding about its urgency and importance.

The Prime Minister indicated that he sometimes wonders where questions about whether figures are being recycled and whether debt relief comes out of aid budgets come from. I reassure him that, although such questions may be asked often, they are not being asked against him. They arise not from unworthy cynicism but from a healthy scepticism that has, unfortunately, been born of much past experience of targets set and of commitments and promises made but not fulfilled. That is why people want to know what is happening, not just for themselves as interested citizens, but because they want to stand by our pledge to fellow world citizens in Africa.

I join other Members in applauding all the efforts of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development in taking the issue forward. Will the Prime Minister assure us that his statement and the communiqué on Friday are merely punctuation marks in a story that will continue? Indeed, he has indicated that he will be taking the cause further during the EU presidency and in the trade round.

In the context of the request of the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister examine alternatives to the advocacy fund, will the Prime Minister consider whether, in the build-up to the trade round, we could try to engineer an Africa impact assessment mechanism? That would mean that none of the developed nations in the world trade negotiations could ask for or agree to anything unless it was Africa-proofed.

I am sure that that will be part of the discussions in the WTO round. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks in respect of myself and the Chancellor and the International Development Secretary who, as I said in my statement, have done an immense amount to bring the situation about.

I do not take the healthy scepticism personally in any way. It is sensible for people to be sceptical, but it is also sensible that they recognise that, with the support they have mobilised, we now have the opportunity truly to make a difference, and I think it is possible to do so.

The Prime Minister attached importance to the climate change action programme. May I ask him whether there was any agreement that those participating in that programme would in due course report back by objective means the progress that they make towards reducing their respective country's emissions of greenhouse gases? May I ask him to consider the possibility of creating some forum where parliamentarians from the eight plus five and other interested countries could meet together to take forward dialogue at that level, so that we may gain greater international understanding of some of these issues?

On the latter point, that would be a sensible idea because it would help people understand what the real problems are. Part of what I have been implying throughout my observations today—I felt this even more strongly when I was with the leaders, discussing climate change—is that the politics of this are slightly different from the way that they are presented. There is a possibility of getting agreement between the eight plus five; what I think is impossible—I am very sure of this now—is to get an agreement that either excludes the eight or excludes the five.

In respect of the objectivity of any assessment, it will happen, of course, in part through the UN framework because we have got the Montreal meeting coming up, but the reporting back both through the new dialogue mechanism that we have established and the summits in Russia in 2006 and in Japan in 2008 will be important opportunities for people to make an assessment of this. I think that people may be prepared to move further than is presently contemplated.

Credit to the Prime Minister and the Government on efforts made and progress achieved, but will the 2015 millennium goals be met by 2015 as a result of the conference? Will poverty be made history as a result of the summit? If not, when?

If we deliver on what has been promised, yes, we can say that the millennium development goals will be met, but, obviously, we have got to deliver on it. We have got to carry it through and see it through, and so have the African countries got to deliver on their part of it as well. I emphasise, yet again, the importance of conflict resolution—the urgent necessity of establishing a standby African force, large enough to go into any situation of conflict. We can see dramatically the importance of that from what is happening in Sudan, where there are now about 8,000 peacekeepers, but more are needed. If there was a 20,000 force able to move into those situations, it would make a tremendous difference. Again, whatever aid is put in, even whatever attempts by Governments are made to strengthen the systems of governance in those countries, if there are conflicts that ravage an entire country, all the progress is set back immediately.

Does the Prime Minister fully understand the disappointment felt by many non-governmental organisations, aid agencies and many campaigners who felt that he and other G8 leaders would be truly brave in tackling African poverty at the summit? In marks out of 10, how close does he think he and the G8 summit came to meeting the demands of the Make Poverty History campaign?